HTG Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 3 leagues at tier 4 is absolutely sensible. The issue for me is that 3 strands merging to a tier 3 of just 10 clubs makes the route up the pyramid very difficult. You could feasibly have 3 leagues of 18 if all shaped to the HL model - so 54 clubs trying access no more than a single spot and still having to beat the team occupying that spot as well as win an 18 team league and beat 2 other winners. Don't know what the answer is but it may be an increase from 10 to 14 for SPFL3 and 3 tier 4 leagues of 12 teams each, playing 3 times for a 33 game season. Then you could relegate 2 automatically from SPFL3 with the 3 winners playing off against each other for 2 places. Or relegate one automatically from SPFL3 and then have team 13 plus the 3 winners playing for 2 places. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomhill Ultra Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Surely the first tier below national has to be north/south then going to the north/east/west below that? It should be as easy as possible for teams to get up a division or two, particularly when first set up and three leagues into one at any tier will create a bottleneck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) Surely the first tier below national has to be north/south then going to the north/east/west below that? It should be as easy as possible for teams to get up a division or two, particularly when first set up and three leagues into one at any tier will create a bottleneck. Not if there are 3 teams coming down, but in order for that to happen tier 4 would need to be bigger, at least 16, if not 18 teams. Edited February 29, 2016 by Jacksgranda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) 16 16. 16. 2 up, 2 down 3,4,5 &14 play offs 16 16 16 16 16 16 Locally organised leagues. KEEP IT SIMPLE! None of this 12 or 14 teams playing each other 3 times or complex splits bollocks. Gives a bigger prem a bigger champ and level 3 can be a bit of a buffer so you can have enough promotion/relegation places to allow movement up and down the pyramid, but is not too big a jump that will se most clubs go straight down the following season, give bigger and better non leage clubs a chance to move up the pyramid, gives the bottom half league 2 clubs a kick up the arse. What's not to love? Edited February 29, 2016 by effeffsee_the2nd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 16 16. 16. 2 up, 2 down 3,4,5 &14 play offs 16 16 16 16 16 16 Locally organised leagues. KEEP IT SIMPLE! None of this 12 or 14 teams playing each other 3 times or complex splits bollocks. Gives a bigger prem a bigger champ and level 3 can be a bit of a buffer so you can have enough promotion/relegation places to allow movement up and down the pyramid, but is not too big a jump that will se most clubs go straight down the following season, give bigger and better non leage clubs a chance to move up the pyramid, gives the bottom half league 2 clubs a kick up the arse. What's not to love? 30 games at tiers 1 - 3 won't be acceptable. But they could split after 30 and play 37. I think that works for tiers 1 - 3 in your model. I'd then revamp the Challenge Cup so it was played for by teams in tiers 3 - 5 with the League Cup open to tiers 1 - 3. On top of that, a revamped Junior Cup open to clubs from say tiers 4 - 7 might deliver a joined up cup competition that would cover most clubs in the current non league senior and junior set ups - assuming the tiers continue to flatten out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Why wont it be accepted? Youre only losing 3 home games a year. With the new league cup youv already padded it out to cover that in the group stages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 You might think it's stupid, but it's the system that produced Malmö, who have pumped both Rangers and Celtic out of the CL in recent seasons. The SPFL has produced clubs that have knocked both Celtic and Rangers out of cups in recent years. It would be an accomplishment if this were 20 or 30 years ago, nowadays it's par for the course with these two. There's a tendency for people to assume Rangers and Celtic are bigger than they actually are, I don't understand that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Why wont it be accepted? Youre only losing 3 home games a year. With the new league cup youv already padded it out to cover that in the group stages. Because the top clubs simply will not accept losing 3 home games per season. It's pretty simple. At their level cash is king and it's well and good saying the league cup will help but it won't in reality. No point pretending that a 30 game season will fly. That apart I'd agree with your structure and the inclusion of a split would leave them close to no worse off. I wouldn't advocate a 37 game season at tier 4 - the pitches just aren't up to it and at the moment floodlights are not a requirement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) Aye its a shame youl never get clubs to see past there own here and now self interest. A split after 30 games to have each team playing another once making 37 games is just fuckin shite tbh ( not attacking you just that its a poor compramise to keep the big guns happy) . How can you say the league doesnt lie when youv had 2 home games against some and 2 away against others? Just games for the sake of games. Its a shame cuase i bet that model is what most fans would prefer Edited March 1, 2016 by effeffsee_the2nd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilky1878 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Because the top clubs simply will not accept losing 3 home games per season. It's pretty simple. At their level cash is king and it's well and good saying the league cup will help but it won't in reality. No point pretending that a 30 game season will fly. That apart I'd agree with your structure and the inclusion of a split would leave them close to no worse off. I wouldn't advocate a 37 game season at tier 4 - the pitches just aren't up to it and at the moment floodlights are not a requirement. Current tier 4 plays 36 games already so I think it could be done. Of course the current tier 4 would be accommodated in tier 3 in this structure and tier 4 would be non league clubs. FWIW I don't think a split would be necessary. Currently tiers 2-4 play 18 home games in a 30 game season they'd drop 3 to make 15 but with the addition of league cup groups they'd add 2 back up bringing them to 17, only 1 home cup tie away from the 18. Of course cup games are split 50/50 but for the lower clubs they are guaranteed a top league side in their group which will probably bring more punters. (For example, hearts vs east stirling will bring more punters than east stirling vs elgin) however, this may be to the detriment of top tier sides. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride_of_the_Clyde Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 'Only' losing three games is 17% of Championship, League 1 & League 2 club's home fixtures and 21 or 22% of those of Premiership clubs. I know many of you are keen on a sixteen team division, but that is a stark prospect for most clubs to face. Would you make that decision? Offsetting them with these new League Cup fixtures is facile and an argument made of convenience and I'm sure most of you know that in your heart of hearts. This new format is run, perhaps not as a trial, but as the SPFL stated in their press release they won't commit to it long-term. These are also fixtures played at a time of year that we have no data on what crowds are like and in a competition which has significantly lower crowds than league matches. Small clubs are also not guaranteed this cure-all match with a big club, some of them won't get it. And in spite of all that, there will still be at least one home game fewer for clubs. It doesn't make sense. And that's before those of us who would oppose a league of that size based on quality concerns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilky1878 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 'Only' losing three games is 17% of Championship, League 1 & League 2 club's home fixtures and 21 or 22% of those of Premiership clubs. I know many of you are keen on a sixteen team division, but that is a stark prospect for most clubs to face. Would you make that decision? Offsetting them with these new League Cup fixtures is facile and an argument made of convenience and I'm sure most of you know that in your heart of hearts. This new format is run, perhaps not as a trial, but as the SPFL stated in their press release they won't commit to it long-term. These are also fixtures played at a time of year that we have no data on what crowds are like and in a competition which has significantly lower crowds than league matches. Small clubs are also not guaranteed this cure-all match with a big club, some of them won't get it. And in spite of all that, there will still be at least one home game fewer for clubs. It doesn't make sense. And that's before those of us who would oppose a league of that size based on quality concerns. As far as I know league cup groups will be 1 team from premiership-championship-league1 - league2 I don't know where the highland/lowland winners slot in though so yes they would get a bigger crowd than usual... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride_of_the_Clyde Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Not at home. And though gate receipts might be halved, they lose out on the opportunity of sponsorship, hospitality, parking and other revenue-makers. But you carry on making your convenient, wishful argument and ignoring the drawbacks above. If you do, I'm finished replying to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 As a fan do you think 30 games is a drawback or is it just becuase clubs wont take it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride_of_the_Clyde Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 I think it's the minimum amount of matches I'd be happy with. This is the decision of the clubs though, fans have an inflated sense of their importance in all this. Important they are, sure, but they're only one factor to consider in this. Do you think the players wages will reduce by 17-22% in line with the drop in number of home games? I doubt it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Reading through the thread, it's easy to see why the authorities don't want to touch this issue with a barge pole 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) Well a lot of us have paid good money to watch shite fitbaw so aye id say our views are pretty important, and as well as that a lot of people no longer pay their money to watch our football, i'd say its more the likes of the old firm hearts Aberdeen etc who have an inflated sense of importance Edited March 2, 2016 by effeffsee_the2nd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 I think we should have fewer games but I could see some fans kicking up a fuss about paying the same amount of money on their season ticket for a few less home games. Two 16 team leagues followed by regional is the way forward. The league cup should only contain the 32 teams in the national leagues, and should have a champions league style format with 6 group games, then you get your 18 guaranteed home games a season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 I think we should have fewer games but I could see some fans kicking up a fuss about paying the same amount of money on their season ticket for a few less home games. Two 16 team leagues followed by regional is the way forward. The league cup should only contain the 32 teams in the national leagues, and should have a champions league style format with 6 group games, then you get your 18 guaranteed home games a season. You'd need to allocate a European slot to the winners of the League Cup to generate any level of interest in something with 6 group games. It's been done away with at junior level in the East Region because it was absolute murder. A series of training events but with full entry price attached. Cups with mini leagues are an abomination in my view. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride_of_the_Clyde Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Well a lot of us have paid good money to watch shite fitbaw so aye id say our views are pretty important, and as well as that a lot of people no longer pay their money to watch our football, i'd say its more the likes of the old firm hearts Aberdeen etc who have an inflated sense of importance If gate receipts are that important, then why haven't they made the change already? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.